As Linux is used more and more frequently in corporate mission-critical applications and servers, the priority seems to be shifting towards stability. Code that works is preferred over less-stable code that contains the latest and greatest features.
Which is also, btw, what people say they want from MS and Windows.
Actually, the main idea is to delay access. The harder it is and the longer it takes, the more likely it is that the perp will be noticed. Hopefully, they'll give up and go elsewhere rather than stand there and increase their chances of getting caught.
Wait a few more years for the WebApp revolution to shift all power away from windows...
Ain't gonna happen. Or rather, there are still large sets of problems that need robust applications running locally. I'm supposed to upload my 400MB Photoshop image to a remote server and work on it there?
The fact is that we had "dumb" terminals before, which gave away to smart terminals which gave away to PCs running applications and client/server applications.
Why the change? Because the user experience is several orders of magnitude better when things happen instantly, and because offloading a good portion of the work to the edge of the network means that everyone is not competing for the use of the same exact set of resources.
Now we have browsers that are increasing in complexity with AJAX, scripts, embedded components, xml, xforms, and other technologies. Why? Because we want better and richer and more productive user experiences.
I'm contracting for a service and the painter is rendering that service, so he deserves to be paid for labor and materials.
Then you're a hypocrite. The only difference between the two is that in software, the time, materials, dollars, and other resources that went into the creation of the end product happened up front.
The fact that distribution costs are low has nothing to do with the fact that the creation costs are high... and that both sets of costs need to be recouped.
Economics 101: if a big chunk of the populace is actively engaged in the black market despite the risks...
I think this comment misses the point. To someone sitting alone down in the "privacy" of their own basement, those risks aren't real, and as such, they have no teeth.
At the moment, getting slammed for downloading a song is akin to winning the lottery or getting hit by lighting. Mentally, it's something that, if it happens, will always happen to someone else.
However, if it makes you happy, I'll agree that if you're ever caught transporting bootleg records across state lines, that said records are not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314, should you in fact be charged with 2314.
Which is all the ruling says.
BTW, with the "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests..." line in the same case, I'd drop the "not property" line if I were you.
Again, an indication that the poster is interested in promoting a negative agenda rather than actually discussing anything.
The point is valid, but people who actively advocate the use of the term "infringement" as an alternative are attempting to play the propaganda game from the other side, as the connotation of infringement implies that one has done little or nothing of consequence.
Better, perhaps, to simply acknowledge that each side has its own "agenda".
Actually, from your own quote, "does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud". It doesn't say it does NOT equate, it says that it doesn't EASILY equate. Which is entirely true. Further, reading on, "nor wholly deprive" indicates that something is deprived.
Again, the SC simply explained why the interstate act, 2314, didn't apply in this case, and why they didn't feel comfortable extending it to do so. In short, they ruled on the application of a specific act, 2314, to the specific case in question.
Excerpting bits and pieces of it to "prove" your point only puts you in the same category as those who point to half a line in some other law that "proves" the U.S. is not empowered to tax its citizens. Especially when the parts you fail to quote completely and totally undermine your case.
As to the rest, you can play dueling dictionaries all you want. I'll take the definition I found.
The ultimate point, however, is that people are not somehow automatically entitled to whatever it is they think they want, no matter how badly they rationalize it, or what word games they play.
If you're going to quote a two-decades old case, then do it correctly. "The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314." Reread the last part, "for purposes of 2314". Which means that they determined that, for this case, the act didn't apply.
Why? "The purpose of 2314 to fill with federal action an enforcement gap created by limited state jurisdiction...." So this is why 2314 exists.
"No such need for supplemental federal action has ever existed with respect to copyright..." And why it doesn't apply.
To back up, "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." So, to quote your own case, there are property interests and it's not just "run-of-the-mill theft".
Now, from dictionary.com: Theft: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent."
Property OR services. Check. Without consent. Check.
Finally, from a moral standpoint, if you take my property, my work, the results of my work, or even just my ideas, you're stealing from me.
So, from a legal, dictionary, and moral standpoint... buzz off.
I thought one of the "reasons" people downloaded music was because the music industry forced them to buy an entire album of "junk" when all they wanted was a song or two.
Now they complain when they can't get ALL the junk. Really, there's just no pleasing some people.... (grin)
This assumes, of course, that all those people WANTED a FreeBSD system. If they didn't, then the price differential is meaningless, as they got what they wanted and paid for...
Care to adjust for a little more than two decades of inflation?
I used to get a chocolate shake at the DQ for $0.50 too, today it's at least $2.50. Damn those cows, monopolizing ingredients and driving up prices....
Not to mention that if you put all that mass on top your parasitic weight goes way up due to the need for more structural support. Or the fact that a stack means that those expensive rocket engines are no longer attached to the reusable portion of the spacecraft.
You can't really count on propietary [sic] software either...
I guess that depends on your viewpoint. Most companies that sell commercial/proprietary software have a somewhat vested interest in keeping their customers happy... as unhappy customers tend to switch to other options and not buy upgrades and new versions and so on.
Again, I'd suggest one visit various schools around the globe. Quite a few impose work loads on their students that are quite literally staggering, with techniques not that unlike ours. But the major difference, to my mind, is that the students and the parents tend to understand the consequences of NOT getting an education. Here, that motivation and understanding seems quite lacking.
Here, we have parents who sue schools for not automatically advancing little Johnny when little Johnny spent all his time cutting class and avoiding schoolwork.
I suspect we'll only start getting motivated students after China eats our breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and people find out that they need to compete... or starve.
And offhand I don't see "Fewer Reboots" and "Nifty Icons" cutting the mustard.
The parent's response was all about the new restricted access modes which could reduce security problems caused by worms and trojans, and allow better control over computers running under your domain, which in turn could vastly reduce support TCO.
In short, he provided the reason. You, however, choose to ignore it in favor of making your "witty" remarks about icons.
So. Would reducing long-term support costs "cut the mustard"? Or at least deserve some intelligent consideration?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is also, btw, what people say they want from MS and Windows.
We might get better results if they actually had to implement, and use, some of their proposed standards . (like soap and xforms)
Sounds like a typical management organization to me.
Yeah, how come it's "stealing" the network when, as all loyal /.'ers must know, you can't call it stealing when nothing physical has been taken away?
Actually, the main idea is to delay access. The harder it is and the longer it takes, the more likely it is that the perp will be noticed. Hopefully, they'll give up and go elsewhere rather than stand there and increase their chances of getting caught.
That sounds just like what hackers are looking for! (grin)
Ain't gonna happen. Or rather, there are still large sets of problems that need robust applications running locally. I'm supposed to upload my 400MB Photoshop image to a remote server and work on it there?
The fact is that we had "dumb" terminals before, which gave away to smart terminals which gave away to PCs running applications and client/server applications.
Why the change? Because the user experience is several orders of magnitude better when things happen instantly, and because offloading a good portion of the work to the edge of the network means that everyone is not competing for the use of the same exact set of resources.
Now we have browsers that are increasing in complexity with AJAX, scripts, embedded components, xml, xforms, and other technologies. Why? Because we want better and richer and more productive user experiences.
Then you're a hypocrite. The only difference between the two is that in software, the time, materials, dollars, and other resources that went into the creation of the end product happened up front.
The fact that distribution costs are low has nothing to do with the fact that the creation costs are high... and that both sets of costs need to be recouped.
Wrap the insulation in Saran Wrap...
Which is really the issue. Who gets to decide what's in my "best interests"?
All too often it seems as if the ones deciding are hypocrites, preaching "family values" one minute and screwing the secretary on the desk the next.
I think this comment misses the point. To someone sitting alone down in the "privacy" of their own basement, those risks aren't real, and as such, they have no teeth.
At the moment, getting slammed for downloading a song is akin to winning the lottery or getting hit by lighting. Mentally, it's something that, if it happens, will always happen to someone else.
A lot of people invested in 8-track, Betamax, and Laserdisks too. I guess time will only tell if your investment is equally sound.
However, if it makes you happy, I'll agree that if you're ever caught transporting bootleg records across state lines, that said records are not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314, should you in fact be charged with 2314.
Which is all the ruling says.
BTW, with the "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests..." line in the same case, I'd drop the "not property" line if I were you.
The point is valid, but people who actively advocate the use of the term "infringement" as an alternative are attempting to play the propaganda game from the other side, as the connotation of infringement implies that one has done little or nothing of consequence.
Better, perhaps, to simply acknowledge that each side has its own "agenda".
Probably why it's the "Concise" OED. The complete OED is twenty volumes and weights 150 pounds...
Again, the SC simply explained why the interstate act, 2314, didn't apply in this case, and why they didn't feel comfortable extending it to do so. In short, they ruled on the application of a specific act, 2314, to the specific case in question.
Excerpting bits and pieces of it to "prove" your point only puts you in the same category as those who point to half a line in some other law that "proves" the U.S. is not empowered to tax its citizens. Especially when the parts you fail to quote completely and totally undermine your case.
As to the rest, you can play dueling dictionaries all you want. I'll take the definition I found.
The ultimate point, however, is that people are not somehow automatically entitled to whatever it is they think they want, no matter how badly they rationalize it, or what word games they play.
Why? "The purpose of 2314 to fill with federal action an enforcement gap created by limited state jurisdiction...." So this is why 2314 exists.
"No such need for supplemental federal action has ever existed with respect to copyright..." And why it doesn't apply.
To back up, "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." So, to quote your own case, there are property interests and it's not just "run-of-the-mill theft".
Now, from dictionary.com: Theft: "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent."
Property OR services. Check. Without consent. Check.
Finally, from a moral standpoint, if you take my property, my work, the results of my work, or even just my ideas, you're stealing from me.
So, from a legal, dictionary, and moral standpoint... buzz off.
Now they complain when they can't get ALL the junk. Really, there's just no pleasing some people.... (grin)
This assumes, of course, that all those people WANTED a FreeBSD system. If they didn't, then the price differential is meaningless, as they got what they wanted and paid for...
I used to get a chocolate shake at the DQ for $0.50 too, today it's at least $2.50. Damn those cows, monopolizing ingredients and driving up prices....
Not to mention that if you put all that mass on top your parasitic weight goes way up due to the need for more structural support. Or the fact that a stack means that those expensive rocket engines are no longer attached to the reusable portion of the spacecraft.
I guess that depends on your viewpoint. Most companies that sell commercial/proprietary software have a somewhat vested interest in keeping their customers happy... as unhappy customers tend to switch to other options and not buy upgrades and new versions and so on.
Here, we have parents who sue schools for not automatically advancing little Johnny when little Johnny spent all his time cutting class and avoiding schoolwork.
I suspect we'll only start getting motivated students after China eats our breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and people find out that they need to compete... or starve.
The parent's response was all about the new restricted access modes which could reduce security problems caused by worms and trojans, and allow better control over computers running under your domain, which in turn could vastly reduce support TCO.
In short, he provided the reason. You, however, choose to ignore it in favor of making your "witty" remarks about icons.
So. Would reducing long-term support costs "cut the mustard"? Or at least deserve some intelligent consideration?
Why, thank you....